Top Mistakes Made By GMs In Drafts

Take note guys because I hate to say it but this is very timely based on where a lot of these draft related threads have been going:

#5 – Drafting players with a questions about character

This draft's potential culprit: Illinois's Jereme Richmond

#4 – Drafting players with histories of injury

This draft's potential culprit: Kyrie Irving

#3 – Drafting for potential rather than experience

Why they do it: Because open air is better than a closed ceiling. How many times do we see teams go with a kid that might be good rather than a player who already is undeniably reliable? Usually, the "potential" guys that succeed are the ones that pretty much everybody agrees on. The ones with a considerably smaller success rate are the "hope-so" guys, and that's where the problem lies. You're probably not going to strike out with LeBron James over anybody else in that amazing 2003 draft, for example, but in 2001 when three of the top four players were high schoolers, we saw a lot of faith poured into young guys when plenty of proven college studs were available. It gets teams into trouble more often than it saves them.

This draft's potential culprit: Brandon Knight over Kemba Walker and Jimmer Fredette. You could say the same thing about Kyrie Irving, who's even more unproven than Knight in some ways, but Knight is a young, rail-thin point guard that teams hope will grow into something special, where Walker and Fredette have already proven what they can do over and over again.

Brandon Knight was a Mcdonald's High School American and averaged 17, 4 and 4 as a freshman and led an inexperienced team to the Final Four in the process.

Yes, he's younger and less experienced than Jimmer/Kemba, but I think it's silly to infer that he hasn't earned his stripes yet. I'm not sure what else you wanted him to do in his first year in college.

Hope you don't mind, Apollo, but this article by Joel Brigham is highly flawed. All he does is pick and choose examples to back up certain cliches.

- "Drafting players with questions about character": I'm sure if someone tried, they could make up a similar list of players under the heading "Overrating good character."

- "Trying to find the next big international success": Like RaptorsFans4Life said, this heading leaves no room for the possibility of drafting an international player because they just might be the subjective BPA. Someone should tell San Antonio to stop gambling on the next big international success. Not only is it a poor strategy, but it's unfair to the other teams that they're relying purely on luck yet draft so successfully.

- "Drafting undersized players": This is more amusing because right before it, Joel has the heading, "drafting big." So GMs are overrating both the vertically gifted and vertically challenged? Boy, those players with prototypical heights sure have it rough!

What do I mean by pick and choose? Flynn is listed under "drafting undersized players," yet he's only a quarter inch shorter than Walker, and larger where it counts (wingspan and standing reach). Walker, on the other hand, gets listed as a player with experience, along with the likes of Chris Paul, Luol Deng and others. Luol Deng only had one year college experience, yet he's lauded over Livingston. Flynn with his two years of college experience and a very decent playoff run under his belt doesn't count. Maybe because a junior was drafted after him (Curry). If only it was so simple as picking whoever spent more time in college. If Flynn and Deng were in the same draft, would Joel be advocating Flynn over Deng due to experience? I can understand comparing point guards with varying levels of experience (i.e. Knight vs Walker, though we won't know if its potential or experience/character that is being overrated until several years into their NBA careers), but comparing players who play different positions?

Very, very inconsistent article. Rubbish.

EDIT: I'm sure there are plenty of counterpoints if we just look through all the different drafts, but just to add a bit more, how about Childress over Deng, who at least play the same position? Livingston is a bad pick over Deng because Deng played one year of college ball, but what about Childress and his three years? One player has been a very solid piece for the bulls, while the other has been floating around. What about Thabeet and his great NCAA career? Point is, only in hindsight do we have the luxury of saying who was overrated and why.

"We only have one rule on this team. What is that rule? E.L.E. That's right's, E.L.E, and what does E.L.E. stand for? EVERYBODY LOVE EVERYBODY. Right there up on the wall, because this isn't just a basketball team, this is a lifestyle. ~ Jackie Moon

there was a time were it was unheard of to draft a 18 year old or international player, granted there have been some players who have come into the league that have dominated but the reality is they are few and far between.

This article is stupid purely because, its poor talent evaluation that is the biggest mistake, in all these examples good players have set a precident for the "mistake". IMO the worst mistake GMs make is getting sucked into the hype about a player and where they should be drafted, tons of screw ups mid lottery.

The BPA theory of drafting has its own problems. There's nothing wrong with drafting for position in a draft like this where there's little separating the "best player available" from the rest, and little to go on in determining who that "best player available" actually is. Of course, all teams want to draft the best player available, but in the absence of damning evidence, it's a better bet to pick the "BPA" at a position of need. For instance, I might think a guy like Alec Burks will end up being the best player from this draft, but there's no way a team with Derozan should pick him at #5.

In this draft, it's generally been assumed that Kyrie Irving is the BPA, with Williams a close 2nd. However, there's really nothing sure about that general assumption when you're talking about an 18 year old with a small body of work to evaulate. Even now, Cleveland is apparently considering Williams at the #1. Is Irving really the BPA?

For Toronto, I can understand that the roster is so young, and the talent level still low enough that drafting for position might not seem like the right choice. But I'd argue the other way: because there's so little obviously separating guys like Knight, Walker, Kanter, Leonard, Vesely, Valanciunas, etc., and so little even separating a 2011 draft pick from a 2009 (Derozan) and 2010 (Davis) pick, you might as well fill a perceived hole with the pick. For TO, that means drafting a C, a SF, or a PG, since I think most here can agree that we'd prefer to see how DD and Ed develop (not to mention Amir), and add a new guy who can get minutes at his position to see if he has the potential to be a 3rd or 4th key piece. This squad in 2012 will still be all about player evaluation, not playoff contention, so minutes for guys will be as critical as internal competition.

In my opinion, we have 2 clearcut starters for 2012 in DD and Davis at the 2 and 4. If Bargnani is not traded (I think he will be), he's the starting 5 again. James Johnson inherits the starting 3, and I think he can handle it, but it doesn't preclude drafting a SF if management thinks Leonard or Vesely can be better. Jose is in the same boat as Bargs -- starter if he isn't traded -- as I really can't see Bayless in that position (to me, he's a combo guard who will never be a true PG; would love to be proven wrong). So to me, the situation is manageable at the 2, 3, and 4 for a young rebuilding team, but starter material is needed at the 1 and 5.

Draft Knight, or Walker/Kanter is my call. Still can't decide if I prefer Walker or Kanter. Either way, once one of the 1/5 gaps are filled, attention can turn to trades/free agency to fill the other.

This team still needs depth and veteran presence, too -- the former of which could be addressed in the draft, but not at the #5 spot or fans will have Colangelo's head. Fair or not, whoever they bring in at #5 is going to be thrown into the fire of being a rotation player immediately and better produce at a decent rate. Fans aren't expecting a career bench player to be taken in the lottery. That also begs to fill a position with the BPA at that position instead of just taking whoever you think will be the BPA.

Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.